it2025_00910 — Applicant has filed the OA challenging the non-completion of disciplinary proceedings for nearly six months even after the direction of the Tribunal, seeking closure of disciplinary proceedings and direction to open the sealed cover containing the recommendations for the promotion of the Applicant

IT Rules

Applicant has filed the OA challenging the non-completion of disciplinary proceedings for nearly six months even after the direction of the Tribunal, seeking closure of disciplinary proceedings and direction to open the sealed cover containing the recommendations for the promotion of the Applicant — The chunk provided relates to an appeal filed by the applicant challenging non-completion of disciplinary proceedings, despite a direction by the Tribunal to complete them within four months. The app... — Facts: Applicant joined the State Forest Service in 1986 and subsequently he was appointed to the Indian Forest Service (IFS) with effect from 2005 by notification, dated 14-10-2016. On completion of 9 years of service in IFS, the Applicant was appointed to the Junior Administrative Grade (JAG) of IFS with effect from 1-1-2014. By notification, dated 4-6-2018 issued by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, the Applicant was placed under suspension under Rule 3(a)
(i) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. Subsequently, by Memorandum, dated 11-6-2018, disciplinary proceedings were initiated on 7 articles of charge. Applicant filed written statement on 21-2-2019 refuting the charges. After completion of 13 years of service in the IFS cadre, the Applicant completed the qualifying number of years for promotion to the Selection Grade. Thereafter on 5-11-2018 the Screening Committee recommended the name of one Suvasish Das having the same allotment year as that of the Applicant, but the Applicant's recommendation was kept in sealed cover on account of the pending inquiry. On 16-9-2019, the suspension of the Applicant was revoked by the Competent Authority with immediate effect and he was reinstated and posted as Deputy Conservator of Forests. Thereafter on 21-6-2019 another Joint Cadre Authority meeting was held for promotion to various grades but the Applicant was not considered due to pendency of proceedings against him. Applicant filed O.A. No. 13 of 2021 before this Tribunal seeking to expedite the proceedings. By order, dated 16-2-2021, this Tribunal directed the Respondents to complete the proceedings within four months. The order was received by the Respondents on 1-3-2021. Challenging the non-completion of inquiry despite the orders of the Tribunal, the Applicant has filed the OA seeking closure of the disciplinary proceedings. Applicant contended that there is an inordinate delay of 3 years in completion of the proceedings despite direction by this Tribunal and his juniors have been promoted and appointed to Level 13-A whereas the Applicant remains at the same position, which is unfair and unjust. Appellant relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Prem Nath Bali v. Registrar, High Court of Delhi [ (2015) 16 SCC 415 ]. Respondents contended that the Government of Assam repeatedly requested the inquiry officer to complete the inquiry as expeditiously as possible. However, for reasons unforeseen, the inquiry could not be completed within the stipulated time. The Applicant submitted his written statement after a period of 8 months and therefore he has also contributed to the delay. Further, the charges are serious in nature and as such the proceedings should not be closed. Since the Applicant is facing two criminal cases, otherwise also he will not get promotion as per the latest instructions of DoP&T. The Tribunal have perused the memorandum of charges and did not find the charges to be serious. There are no charges of misappropriation, corruption or causing loss to the exchequer. According to the learned counsel for Respondents, the delay of 8 months by the Applicant to file his written statement and the COVID outbreak have caused the delay. However, the Applicant filed his written statement on 21-2-2019 and the outbreak started in March, 2020. There has been one year in between at the disposal of the disciplinary authority. Even during the outbreak, the Government was functioning with 50% attendance and the officers holding the rank of Under Secretary and above were required to attend the office regularly. The Respondents, have neither complied with the order of this Tribunal to complete the inquiry within four months nor did they file any application for extension of time. The inquiry officer is also a Government servant and therefore we are not convinced with the submission that the State Government was repeatedly requesting the inquiry officer for expeditious completion of the proceedings. Though in the written statement there is a mention of pendency of criminal cases against the Applicant, no documentary proof has been annexed. In the minutes of the Joint Cadre Authority Meeting of IFS held on 21-6-2019, there is no mention of pendency of criminal cases. Thus we fail to appreciate such contention made in the written statement in the absence of any material and any such observation in the JCA Meeting. Applicant has completed the requisite years of service and undisputedly his juniors got promotion to the rank of Conservator of Forests Level 13-A, but on the plea of disciplinary proceedings, the Screening Committee kept their recommendations in a sealed cover in respect of the Applicant. Undoubtedly this has caused financial and mental agony to the Applicant. In Prem Nath Bali's case (supra) the Supreme Court has mandated that a departmental inquiry must be concluded within a period of not more than one year, by all entities and persons involved in conducting the departmental inquiry proceedings.

IT Rules

Applicant has filed the OA challenging the non-completion of disciplinary proceedings for nearly six months even after the direction of the Tribunal, seeking closure of disciplinary proceedings and direction to open the sealed cover containing the recommendations for the promotion of the Applicant — The chunk provided relates to an appeal filed by the applicant challenging non-completion of disciplinary proceedings, despite a direction by the Tribunal to complete them within four months. The app... — Facts: Applicant joined the State Forest Service in 1986 and subsequently he was appointed to the Indian Forest Service (IFS) with effect from 2005 by notification, dated 14-10-2016. On completion of 9 years of service in IFS, the Applicant was appointed to the Junior Administrative Grade (JAG) of IFS with effect from 1-1-2014. By notification, dated 4-6-2018 issued by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, the Applicant was placed under suspension under Rule 3(a)
(i) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. Subsequently, by Memorandum, dated 11-6-2018, disciplinary proceedings were initiated on 7 articles of charge. Applicant filed written statement on 21-2-2019 refuting the charges. After completion of 13 years of service in the IFS cadre, the Applicant completed the qualifying number of years for promotion to the Selection Grade. Thereafter on 5-11-2018 the Screening Committee recommended the name of one Suvasish Das having the same allotment year as that of the Applicant, but the Applicant's recommendation was kept in sealed cover on account of the pending inquiry. On 16-9-2019, the suspension of the Applicant was revoked by the Competent Authority with immediate effect and he was reinstated and posted as Deputy Conservator of Forests. Thereafter on 21-6-2019 another Joint Cadre Authority meeting was held for promotion to various grades but the Applicant was not considered due to pendency of proceedings against him. Applicant filed O.A. No. 13 of 2021 before this Tribunal seeking to expedite the proceedings. By order, dated 16-2-2021, this Tribunal directed the Respondents to complete the proceedings within four months. The order was received by the Respondents on 1-3-2021. Challenging the non-completion of inquiry despite the orders of the Tribunal, the Applicant has filed the OA seeking closure of the disciplinary proceedings. Applicant contended that there is an inordinate delay of 3 years in completion of the proceedings despite direction by this Tribunal and his juniors have been promoted and appointed to Level 13-A whereas the Applicant remains at the same position, which is unfair and unjust. Appellant relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Prem Nath Bali v. Registrar, High Court of Delhi [ (2015) 16 SCC 415 ]. Respondents contended that the Government of Assam repeatedly requested the inquiry officer to complete the inquiry as expeditiously as possible. However, for reasons unforeseen, the inquiry could not be completed within the stipulated time. The Applicant submitted his written statement after a period of 8 months and therefore he has also contributed to the delay. Further, the charges are serious in nature and as such the proceedings should not be closed. Since the Applicant is facing two criminal cases, otherwise also he will not get promotion as per the latest instructions of DoP&T. The Tribunal have perused the memorandum of charges and did not find the charges to be serious. There are no charges of misappropriation, corruption or causing loss to the exchequer. According to the learned counsel for Respondents, the delay of 8 months by the Applicant to file his written statement and the COVID outbreak have caused the delay. However, the Applicant filed his written statement on 21-2-2019 and the outbreak started in March, 2020. There has been one year in between at the disposal of the disciplinary authority. Even during the outbreak, the Government was functioning with 50% attendance and the officers holding the rank of Under Secretary and above were required to attend the office regularly. The Respondents, have neither complied with the order of this Tribunal to complete the inquiry within four months nor did they file any application for extension of time. The inquiry officer is also a Government servant and therefore we are not convinced with the submission that the State Government was repeatedly requesting the inquiry officer for expeditious completion of the proceedings. Though in the written statement there is a mention of pendency of criminal cases against the Applicant, no documentary proof has been annexed. In the minutes of the Joint Cadre Authority Meeting of IFS held on 21-6-2019, there is no mention of pendency of criminal cases. Thus we fail to appreciate such contention made in the written statement in the absence of any material and any such observation in the JCA Meeting. Applicant has completed the requisite years of service and undisputedly his juniors got promotion to the rank of Conservator of Forests Level 13-A, but on the plea of disciplinary proceedings, the Screening Committee kept their recommendations in a sealed cover in respect of the Applicant. Undoubtedly this has caused financial and mental agony to the Applicant. In Prem Nath Bali's case (supra) the Supreme Court has mandated that a departmental inquiry must be concluded within a period of not more than one year, by all entities and persons involved in conducting the departmental inquiry proceedings.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text